Discussion: How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens (Coursework Sample)

How the Courts Address or Respect Our Rights as Citizens
Student Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
OUTLINE
A. Case Summary
In this discussion, the emphasis is made on the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. This case was a landmark decision made by the Supreme Court in 1896 whereby the constitutionality of racial segregation was upheld as per the “separate but equal” doctrine. This case arose from an instance whereby an African American train passenger refused to sit in a car which was designated for black people. The court rejected Plessy’s argument that his constitutional rights had been violated (Brown & Harlan, 1896). In the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that a law which would imply merely a particular legal distinction between Blacks and Whites was not unconstitutional. Consequently, restrictive Jim Crow laws and separate accommodation of Blacks and Whites in public places became the norm.
The background of this case was the end of the era of reconstruction and after the Compromise of 1877. At this time, the federal troops had been withdrawn from the South and there was control of the Democrats in the state legislatures all over the region. Southern Blacks viewed the promise of equality as per the law as being embodied in the 13th to the 15th Amendment to the American Constitution as receding quickly and that a return of disenfranchisement and spread of white supremacist ideas was reasserting itself all over the South. By the 1880s, black Americans and Whites from the South were mixing freely up to that point when state legislatures started to pass laws which required railroads to come up with separate cars from colored passengers as well as Negros.
B. Case Outline
1. Title/ Name of the Case
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
2. Facts
Plessy, a person who was one-eighth black, bought a first-class ticket for a train trip on the East Louisiana Railway which was owned by the state. He selected to sit in an all-white car of the train. The conductor of the train found him seated in that car and asked him to leave the train since it was reserved for white people. He further told Plessy that he should find a seat within the colored car section of the train. Plessy declined to obey the orders and was subsequently arrested on the basis of Louisiana state laws which permitted the use of the “separate but equal” doctrine in which blacks and whites could be accommodated separately in public places. Plessy would later be found guilty for violating the laws of the state due to his presence on the train. In his appeal, he asserted that Louisiana law was in violation of his constitutional rights as per the 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment which prohibited slavery and advocated for equal protection respectively.
3. History
At the heart of the rampant resistance against the Jim Crow laws and the horror against black people in the South was a law which had been passed by the state of Louisiana that there could be separate railway carriages for colored people and white people (Ferguson, 1896). The law stipulated that all passenger railroads would provide such separate cars, but with equal nature of facilities. Plessy, the plaintiff in this case sought to test the constitutionality of the law.
4. Legal Questions
The main legal question in this case regarded the constitutionality of Louisiana’s laws on train car segregation. Plessy sought to have the lower court’s decision overturned because he believed that there was no constitutional justification for segregation in any place within the United States.
5. Decision or holdings
The outcome of this particular case was in favor of Louisiana. The court based its decision on equal protection by stating that equal protection could not be attained through enforcement commingling of races. The court also noted that the function of the American Constitution was not come up with social equality among races or to remove racial instincts in respect to segregated activity (Medley, 2012). The court went on to conclude that the act of blacks and whites being accommodated separately was not in relega